http://www.eu-academy.eu/freeresources/regulating-risk-in-the-eu-science-policy-and-precaution/ The rapid growth of EU regulations dealing with Pharma, Food, Chemicals and beyond Advocacy opportunities in risk regulation The nature, politics and the law of the Precautionary Principle

1. Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution
Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution
The following document contains the answers to the questions from the participants at the free webinar on EU
public affairs held by the European Training Academy and Burson
information purposes only.
Q: When it comes to substances like BPA, why aren't they just banned?
A: This would not be a reasonable approach. Should public authorities ban any substance suspected of
causing adverse effects, very few agents would remain on the market. The paradox is that even when
we know for sure about the hazardous character of certain s
society might decide to accept it.
Q: You talked about US - EU trade. How about the Canada EU trad
block there is GMOs. Do you know anything about these negotiations and the regulatory ap
the EU to this issue vis-a-vis Canada.
A: I sense that many of the issues that will be at the centre of the TTIP will
CETA. Yet the answer remains the same: the two sides should agre
methods of risk assessment, common
sectoral areas, such as GMOs.
Q: Risk regulation, in public health or consumer protection, whether r
to stop the innovation. On opposite, it may foster green innovation. Don't you think so?
A: No, should public authorities focus their limited
substantiated by evidence, we would run the risk as a society to invest badly invest its li
We should rather tackle real risks and make sure that our
than impose costs.
Q: Don’t you think that science is being used to
affecting negatively to the trend of giving more weight to it in the
other inputs?
A: While I agree on the risk of manipulating science for political purposes, scientific knowledge is
to stay and should be the first input into the policymak
managers could (and in the EU should) also consider non scient
traditional considerations, when decide whether and how to regulate a given risk.
Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution
Webinar – May 08, 2013
Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution
Q&A
The following document contains the answers to the questions from the participants at the free webinar on EU
held by the European Training Academy and Burson-Marsteller on 08 May 2013. It is intended for
When it comes to substances like BPA, why aren't they just banned?
This would not be a reasonable approach. Should public authorities ban any substance suspected of
ausing adverse effects, very few agents would remain on the market. The paradox is that even when
we know for sure about the hazardous character of certain substances, such nicotine
EU trade. How about the Canada EU trade agreement (CETA)? A stumbling
block there is GMOs. Do you know anything about these negotiations and the regulatory ap
vis Canada.
I sense that many of the issues that will be at the centre of the TTIP will also be highly controversial in
CETA. Yet the answer remains the same: the two sides should agree on some horizontal approaches
common authorisation systems, etc) before coming to the
Risk regulation, in public health or consumer protection, whether real or perceived, does not have
opposite, it may foster green innovation. Don't you think so?
No, should public authorities focus their limited resources on regulating perceived risks that are
substantiated by evidence, we would run the risk as a society to invest badly invest its li
We should rather tackle real risks and make sure that our regulatory efforts will attain
you think that science is being used to demonstrate one theory and the opposite, and this is
to the trend of giving more weight to it in the policy making process in favour
While I agree on the risk of manipulating science for political purposes, scientific knowledge is
to stay and should be the first input into the policymaking process. This does not exclude that
managers could (and in the EU should) also consider non scientific factors, such as societal,
traditional considerations, when decide whether and how to regulate a given risk.
Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution
The following document contains the answers to the questions from the participants at the free webinar on EU
2013. It is intended for
This would not be a reasonable approach. Should public authorities ban any substance suspected of
ausing adverse effects, very few agents would remain on the market. The paradox is that even when
nicotine in cigarettes,
e agreement (CETA)? A stumbling
block there is GMOs. Do you know anything about these negotiations and the regulatory approach of
also be highly controversial in
e on some horizontal approaches (e.g.
tems, etc) before coming to the discussion of
eal or perceived, does not have
opposite, it may foster green innovation. Don't you think so?
on regulating perceived risks that are not
substantiated by evidence, we would run the risk as a society to invest badly invest its limited resources.
regulatory efforts will attain more benefits
y and the opposite, and this is
policy making process in favour of
While I agree on the risk of manipulating science for political purposes, scientific knowledge is there
ess. This does not exclude that risk
ific factors, such as societal, economic,